The location is the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion at St Edmunds College, Cambridge (and that link will take you to several other lectures on the topic "Science and the Bible"), and the date is 15 May 2007.

Surely a scientist worth his salt would explore alternatives to resurrection that would explain the more believable aspects of the empty tomb and post-crucifixion appearances. The most obvious one is clinical death on the cross, followed by resuscitation and medical attention in the tomb. The one-in-three probability reported by Josephus for survival under the same basic conditions is worth noting.

I didn't hear Tom Wright make any mention of this negative answer to his question.

Why did early converts to Jesus-worship in Corinth scoff at the idea that God would choose to raise corpses?

Why does Paul tell them that Jesus became a spirit?

Why does Paul call them idiots for even discussing how a corpse can return from the dead - telling them that you do not plant the body that will be?

Why does he remind them that earthly beings differ from heavenly beings the way that a fish differs from the moon?

Why does he trash the idea that God would make resurrected beings from the dust of the earth , as follows

'The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.'

Why does Paul plead in Romans 7:24 for somebody to rescue him from his body of death?

All this and more, is virtually ignored by Wright.

For example, in his 'Romans for Everyone' book, Wright only quotes in his commentary 'Who will rescue me?', leaving out what it was that Paul wanted to be rescued from - namely his body.

In a contemporary context, the only things that had power in bodies were spirits, be it the spirit of truth or the spirit of deceit. These two spirits waged war with each other. Thus before Romans was 'Paulinised', I believe the original prophetic writer of Romans 7.22-24 would have written something like this:

7.22. For in my SPIRIT OF TRUTH I delight in God’s SPIRIT;

7.23. but I see another SPIRIT at work in the members of my body, waging war against MY SPIRIT OF TRUTH, making me a prisoner of the SPIRIT of DECEIT at work within my members.

7.24.What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this SPIRIT of DECEIT?

Rescue would come when the spirit of truth left the body at death to rise to glory.

Thus the original writer and recipients of the original Epistle to the Romans understood that when its animating spirit departed from a body, the body died. A question that the original epistle answered, was not concerned with the body being raised up, but with what happened to a spirit that left a body. Would it rise to glory, or would it be condemned?